Kevin Solway wrote:Who are the innovators, the independent thinkers and geniuses, the deep and rational thinkers in these tribes, women? Who are the tribal chiefs who make all the important decisions? Who are the clearest-thinking (from a rational perspective)?

Women are the tribe chiefs and leaders, as well as the innovators. But I am not sure how to find out who are the independent, deep and rational thinkers and geniuses in these communities. Just in the same way I find hard to know who are those in our communities. IsnÂ´t thought a silent process? Or is it indeed a way to recognize a sage with total agreement for anyone who meets him/her? Is it really possible to make a list of dead and alive wise humans?

Who are the sexual aggressors? That's what we need to know.

Could you elaborate on this? Is there a reason why the gender that includes the sexual agressors tends to include the wise individuals too? Why would that be?

(...) the Woman concept in general tends to describe individuals as either masculine or feminine, in a "full vs empty" fashion, i.e. someone is 80% masculine therefore is 20% feminine.

The idea is that masculinity equates with consciousness, so it follows that whatever part of a person is not masculine (conscious) is unconscious.

My point is that masculinity is not the inverse of femininity, but they are independent human characteristics, so that even if masculinity equals consciousness, it doesnÂ´t follows that femininity equals unconsciousness, because they are independent parameters, say, like height and weight.ThatÂ´s what psychologists see with the tests, that you cannot know about your level of masculinity by taking the femininity test only, and viceversa, so that someone could be 40% masculine and 90% feminine, or 60% and 60%, or 20% and 10%, because they refer to different things.So, it could be that you are 100% masculine (and therefore 100% conscious if the masculinity=consciousness concept is true), but you could also be 60% feminine at the same time, in addition to the masculinity.

I find interesting that psychologists recognize another characteristic that they call androgyny which is a set of behavioral and attitude responses that occur in both genders, but that go in opposite direction depending of the gender: in this case having a more pure masculine response means having less of a feminine response. So for androgynous responses (but only for those) there exist a masculine/femenine gradient. Could these androgynous responses what you guys refer as wisdom when given in a masculine fashion?

dyctiostelium wrote:Women are the tribe chiefs and leaders, as well as the innovators.

In those tribes you mean? Are you sure about that?

But I am not sure how to find out who are the independent, deep and rational thinkers and geniuses in these communities.

We need to know that if we are to know who the masculine ones are.

Is it really possible to make a list of dead and alive wise humans?

It's as easy as marking an exam.

Who are the sexual aggressors? That's what we need to know.

Could you elaborate on this? Is there a reason why the gender that includes the sexual aggressors tends to include the wise individuals too? Why would that be?

Those who have an aggressive nature are more likely to attain wisdom since attaining wisdom is such a difficult thing to do. It requires a tremendous effort and entails enormous pain along the way. Dismissing outright things which are false is an aggressive thing to do.

Camille Paglia says, "There is no female genius because there is no female Jack the Ripper."

The idea is that masculinity equates with consciousness, so it follows that whatever part of a person is not masculine (conscious) is unconscious.

My point is that masculinity is not the inverse of femininity

It is the way I define it. Masculinity = consciousness (and therefore activity), and femininity = unconsciousness (and therefore passivity).

So, it could be that you are 100% masculine (and therefore 100% conscious if the masculinity=consciousness concept is true), but you could also be 60% feminine at the same time, in addition to the masculinity.

That would be using a different definition of masculinity and femininity, which I don't go along with.

Elizabeth wrote:Each gender can give the opposite gender a different perspective on things which may or may not be helpful, but insisting on a path that is wrong for that individual is damaging - no matter how good the intentions were.

How many strokes of ego amounts to a helpful?

There is no wrong path. You can only be not on it.

A sage travels light. A woman keeps luggage.It is not a coincidence.

Individual is a fallacy to begin with. New models of luggage are so big they require wheels as carrying has become impossible.

Damaging? You mean hurt emotions; Remaining utterly selfish. As long as you will get your desire, that is what you want, you will show grace, and be ready to accept perfect illumination. You request remaining in a state where you are hurt by things. By things that appear only to you as you force self.

Damaging? Not damaging enough!

You can not realize the intentions, let alone what is good, as you judge by appearance alone. The emotions you observe as a result you take as your guide back into forest.

You must unroot at cause.

And, be quick!

At the moment of golden opportunity, a woman is yet again born.

A woman truly doesn't understand what a generalization means.

Crime has been commited and forgiving oneself has become impossible. Thus the mind grasps at the only possible outlet of desire that can be fed, revenge. The only way that revenge will not be metered in full is if everyone will beg forgiveness and worship the ground beneath her feet. Then she, in her brilliance, can show mercy and peace abounds.

No, I mean setting an impossible path when a traversable one is right next to it, or setting someone on a path that does not lead to wisdom at all.

tooyi wrote:There is no wrong path.

A path is only deemed right or wrong if it leads to where you want to go. For example, taking cocaine is the wrong path to wisdom because it damages the brain, likely to the point that it is physically incapable of supporting wisdom.

Dan Rowden wrote:I'm sorry, what's circular about it?

If the premise is that feminine = unconsciousness, you definitively state that the reasons for most men's lack of consciousness is the level of femininity of their minds. That becomes the same thing as saying that the reasons for most men's lack of consciousness is the level of unconsciousness of their minds. That is as classic of a circular argument as you can get.

I am challenging your premise, so you can not use that premise as part of your argument without making a circular argument. In order to make a logical argument, you would have to use supportive statements of your definition rather than using the definition itself.

Kevin Solway wrote:Camille Paglia says, "There is no female genius because there is no female Jack the Ripper."

And of course if Camille says it, it must be true? Please argue from facts. The above quote of Camille is a logical fallacy because it does not follow.

It very well may be that the difference between a Buddha and a Ted Bundy is that the former has a higher neuron count, a smaller or somehow less dominant adrenal gland, an overall lower quantity of hormones in proportion to neurons, etc.

It also might be helpful to consider what was discussed in another thread I made on Louis Berman's concept of Low Brain Masculinization

Male Gorillas are highly aggressive and masculinized, sometimes beating up and even killing pregnant females who have been impregnated by other males in order to establish dominance. We don't see these apes meditating under a tree trying to achieve enlightenment do we?

So masculinization as a concept either covers a much more broad territory via relativism, or the concept of feminization needs more credit than it deserves.

Basically, the challenge here is how to use our concepts of masculinity and femininty to categorize biological phenomena in animals and humans.

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:If the premise is that feminine = unconsciousness, you definitively state that the reasons for most men's lack of consciousness is the level of femininity of their minds. That becomes the same thing as saying that the reasons for most men's lack of consciousness is the level of unconsciousness of their minds.

Yes! This is absolutely right. When men or women lack some degree of consciousness, it is because they have some amount of unconsciousness. When men or women lack some degree of masculinity, it is because they have some amount of femininity. For instance, if a man or woman is 60% masculine/conscious, it is because they are *still* 40% feminine/unconscious. The reason I use the word "still" is because, theoretically, a man and woman can use whatever consciousness/masculinity they have to gain a higher (or lower) percentage of itself, and therefore a lower (or higher) percentage of femininity/unconsciousness. They can for example, question truth very hard with their masculinity/consciousness, and gain more truthful insights, which would boost them to 80% conscious/masculine...the remaining would of course be 20% unconscious/feminine.

Masculinity/consciousness is the ACTIVE force and can create more of itself. Femininity can not shrink or grow on its own, because it doesn't ever gain more experience...it is INNOCENCE!

***

I personally believe that having some level of unconsciousness/femininity is a good thing. Given that everyone has at least a little, it would be a little inappropriate to call it bad! It's just the way things are. Moreover, I believe that while wisdom is among the most honorable goals, maybe THE most honorable, it is not the ONLY goal in this world that has value.

Femininity is actually a very beautiful thing. It is pure innocence! And it seems as though some people were lucky enough to stay in childhood. It is not something that I want for myself, but I think it is OK that others naturally do. Men have come to fear femininity because of its wild unpredictability, and its ability to cloud what otherwise could be clear thinking in us. But this is only because most men do not know how to deal with this part of themselves - they don't have that specific skill in their masculinity.

Now, it could very well be that a person could become SO rational that they lose practically all touch and appreciation for femininity. From what I can see the difference between this man and a man who can stay clear headed while also enjoying femininity from time to time is neglegable in terms of ethics.

Dycty is reading from the "Women Philosophy" book in quoting Mead and feminist psychometrics, both of which I'm well familiar with. The best refutation of Mead is Goldberg's "Inevitability of Patriarchy". In it he proves that those tribes were in fact run by the men. As for the feminist psychometrics, I worked as a psychometrician in the mid Seventies with the most respected personality inventory, the MMPI, and also with IQ tests. Then I saw the feminists move in and destroy one of the MMPI scales, the Masculine/Feminine scale.

Dan Wrote:

But I do not believe women "complement" men, and I certainly do not espouse or would consider supporting an ideology that says they should.

No one is taking "should" here Dan but what "is".

Dan Wrote:

This is one of the most significant problems we have: each sex defining and measuring their worth and reality against the other. I mean, what the?

"Complement" kind of takes the sting out of "worth" wouldn't you say?

Dan:

Men and women complement each other in the basic sense of procreative biology, but beyond that it's all just social and psychological conditioning from which I think we should strive to free ourselves - or at least gain sufficient understanding such that we know in what ways we can, or might want to.

Evolutionary psychologists would think it just "conditioning". In fact they strongly suspect much of our behavior to revolve around procreation and that it's genetic

Dan:

And remember for women to complement men, men must complement women. This seems terribly limiting for individuals of either gender.

What's "limiting" about it? Would it be less limiting if we fought eachother?

I have to run, but I would like to talk more about this "maleability" issue, or at least say there's other views and that it is a cornerstone of "Women Philosophy", ie Feminism.

Cory Duchesne wrote:From 'the moderators' perspective, masculinity seems entirely relative and contextual, but not necessarily arbitrary. For instance, a male gorilla compared to a female gorilla is masculine; whereas a male gorilla compared to a male human is feminine.

I really appreciate you provided this example, I hadnÂ´t realized Woman in such a way.

Kevin Solway wrote:

dyctiostelium wrote:My point is that masculinity is not the inverse of femininity

It is the way I define it. Masculinity = consciousness (and therefore activity), and femininity = unconsciousness (and therefore passivity).

dyctiostelium wrote:So, it could be that you are 100% masculine (and therefore 100% conscious if the masculinity=consciousness concept is true), but you could also be 60% feminine at the same time, in addition to the masculinity.

That would be using a different definition of masculinity and femininity, which I don't go along with.

autism wrote:Dycty is reading from the "Women Philosophy" book in quoting Mead and feminist psychometrics, both of which I'm well familiar with. The best refutation of Mead is Goldberg's "Inevitability of Patriarchy". In it he proves that those tribes were in fact run by the men. As for the feminist psychometrics, I worked as a psychometrician in the mid Seventies with the most respected personality inventory, the MMPI, and also with IQ tests. Then I saw the feminists move in and destroy one of the MMPI scales, the Masculine/Feminine scale.

It does seem I am reading from the "Women Philosophy" book then. I wasnÂ´t aware that Mead claims were under suspicion, so I wonÂ´t get there without a clearer picture of her potential bias (or GoldbergÂ´s).

Regarding what you call "feminist psychometrics", could you point out to reasons that disqualify them, other than their feminism? I am not trying to be annoying, it is an honest question from an outsider of the field.

I would be interested to know if there are in fact two alternative views which a comparable degree of academic credibility, in the same way that there seem to be two "competing" conceptions of masculinity-femininity (inverse vs independent variables).

If the premise is that feminine = unconsciousness, you definitively state that the reasons for most men's lack of consciousness is the level of femininity of their minds. That becomes the same thing as saying that the reasons for most men's lack of consciousness is the level of unconsciousness of their minds. That is as classic of a circular argument as you can get.

I am challenging your premise, so you can not use that premise as part of your argument without making a circular argument. In order to make a logical argument, you would have to use supportive statements of your definition rather than using the definition itself.

Thinking of it that way makes it circular yes. So, let's think of it in simpler, more direct terms: men are mostly feminine; women almost entirely so. To divine the meaning of that you have to consider what the definitional content of "feminine" is. Is it necessary after all the extant discussion of this matter than I outline mine?

DR wrote:Men and women complement each other in the basic sense of procreative biology, but beyond that it's all just social and psychological conditioning from which I think we should strive to free ourselves - or at least gain sufficient understanding such that we know in what ways we can, or might want to.

Evolutionary psychologists would think it just "conditioning". In fact they strongly suspect much of our behavior to revolve around procreation and that it's genetic

My studies in seduction support this suspicion. It is an unbelievable thing to become conscious of the steps in the human mating dance sequence, and see each step trigger the same behavioral reaction in female after female. There are slight variations on the theme depending on the female's psychological makeup, but the overall sequence is more or less set in stone.

It is equally unbelievable to observe how much of human life is directed toward increasing the chance of triggering the mating dance in the other sex. In fact I would guess that particularly in females it is the vast majority. Even in males that I observe for example on subways, their body language immediately changes the moment an attractive lady enters the car, and even when he internally dismissing her his body language does not shift back to normal until she leaves.

Its probably true that for a heterosexual man a bj from a man is not going to be quite the same as from a woman! This is because the man did not go through the "female" half of the mating dance to trigger his attraction mechanism. I don't doubt that prolonged renunciation of women and a heavy dose of reasoning can seriously dampen the libido, but the universality of these observations seem to strongly support a heavy genetic influence.

I'd also like to comment that Elizabeth's seeming lack of comprehension on this matter isn't really that she is incapable of it, but she is receiving an emotional high in creating conflict, which is simply more important to FEEL than it is to acknowledge the truth that is clearly apparent. To her, and to most women, emotions are like crack, and they all are looking for their next fix. Whether it be a high or a low, it doesn't matter as long as its intense.

Conflict is actually one of a woman's primary emotions that allows her to subconsiously screen in or out men from the mating dance. This is why "nice" guys don't make it too far with the ladies. They try to put the conflict to rest like any noble man would, when in reality they don't realize that she is having FUN, and that she wants MORE. I guarantee that Elizabeth is totally entertained and amused by all of this. Logic does not enter her radar with any importance.

Elizabeth wrote:No, I mean setting an impossible path when a traversable one is right next to it, or setting someone on a path that does not lead to wisdom at all.

Where is that impossible? Before it was damaging, but malleable that it is, it has now turned your chosen path into impossible. The appearing traversable paths convey the illusion of being really comfortable as they lead directly back to original attachment.

Elizabeth wrote:A path is only deemed right or wrong if it leads to where you want to go. For example, taking cocaine is the wrong path to wisdom because it damages the brain, likely to the point that it is physically incapable of supporting wisdom.

Cocaine is not a path. It is a drug. To the degree it hurts the brain it is not likely to be conducive to harboring wisdom. It doesn't mean it is completely useless, it's just, in all probability, not worth it.

In what way do you think the right path goes to where you 'want to go'? It's not a gift shop, nor is there a fashion catalog. You seem to imply peculiar degrees of choice in the matter. That there are various paths in general doesn't mean it's Haute Couture.

It will be impossible to make contact with the Truth just by analyzing it.One has to stab self with it.Repeatedly.

The different forms of penance, self mutilation and self-torture among monks and their ilk are just an echo of someone having realized an aspect of need to eliminate some of the arrogance involved. There is no part of the comfort zone that can remain. No harbor of mind to park. No safety left.

Elizabeth wrote:No, I mean setting an impossible path when a traversable one is right next to it, or setting someone on a path that does not lead to wisdom at all.

Where is that impossible?

Some females who have already been beaten down will never get to wisdom by being told "you will never get there; you are only a woman." Many of them probably won't, but it does not help the cause of wisdom to turn away even one potential sage by placing an unnecessary barrier in the path.

tooyi wrote:In what way do you think the right path goes to where you 'want to go'?

I was speaking in relative terms. If you want to become wise, the right path involves a lot of thinking and reasoning. If you want to become a criminal, the right path is to do illegal activities. That does not mean that doing illegal activities is the judgmentally "right path" but it would be the relativistic right way to accomplish your judgmentally wrong goal.

I'd also like to comment that Elizabeth's seeming lack of comprehension on this matter isn't really that she is incapable of it, but she is receiving an emotional high in creating conflict, which is simply more important to FEEL than it is to acknowledge the truth that is clearly apparent. To her, and to most women, emotions are like crack, and they all are looking for their next fix. Whether it be a high or a low, it doesn't matter as long as its intense.

Conflict is actually one of a woman's primary emotions that allows her to subconsiously screen in or out men from the mating dance. This is why "nice" guys don't make it too far with the ladies. They try to put the conflict to rest like any noble man would, when in reality they don't realize that she is having FUN, and that she wants MORE. I guarantee that Elizabeth is totally entertained and amused by all of this. Logic does not enter her radar with any importance.

I think you're right on the mark there. Amazingly, you seem to have summed up woman in a nutshell.

I'll have to give further thought to those seduction sites. They look to have schooled you well.

I have been skipping Skipair's posts because all he seems to be doing is gratuitously insulting me, but for now, I am still reading David's posts, so I will respond to Skipair's quote within David's post.

Anyone who does not see how much I identify with logic is simply blind to that fact. I am neither entertained nor amused by all of this. I am fighting for reason - something that Skipair does not appear to have much of, and that David appears to have totally lost.

It is okay to create conflict if it is for the ultimate good - like pointing out the errors in the Woman philosophy. The Chernobyl disaster happened because no one wanted to create any conflict. It is not a matter of getting some jollies out of it - in fact creating conflict can be quite painful. What it is a matter of is pointing out the truth.

I must also question skipair's post. It is valid for women but isn't it equally valid for men? Don't all people naturally want to feel they have some power? Some people believe they have the absolute truth and are enlightened sages. Others try to fuel dead arguments for the fun of displaying their power over the other person. Others come in to the debate and cast ill judgment down on one of the parties. Another may come in to the debate to point this out to the others and condescendingly suggest that they are engaged in futility that he has no time for except to pop in and make the odd point.

Perhaps some people derive power from thinking they are ego-less or above the whole search for status.

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:Some females who have already been beaten down will never get to wisdom by being told "you will never get there; you are only a woman." Many of them probably won't, but it does not help the cause of wisdom to turn away even one potential sage by placing an unnecessary barrier in the path.

I think you're equivocating somewhat in that paragraph. One must face stark and harsh realities. Women face a tremendous barrier in the pursuit of wisdom. But the thing is, if and when any individual woman sees this - I mean really sees the truth of it - this insight by its very nature means she has taken a significant step through that barrier. It constitutes the first and necessary step, really. Therefore, bring candid about the reality of these matters is exactly what is needed. If this doesn't happen this step will remain hidden and people are likely to trip and break their necks on the staircase. But I will add that falsely fatalistic language should be avoided in the process.